If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Comment

I'm going to make a over the top argument here to make a point: Do I, as an American citizen, have the Constitutional right, per the second Amendment, to have personal ownership of a nuclear weapon, and the right to use said weapon in defense of my property, family, and person?

Hence the issue here: "Yes" is idiotic for reasons that shouldn't need to be explained. "No" implies that government does have the right to control ownership/purchase of some forms of weapons based on some criteria, in which case, we argue over the threshold of what forms of weapons are allowable, rather then whether weapons are allowable.

Personally? I view the issue more of being a cultural problem, rather then a gun problem. That being said, I would put the limit of allowable firearms below anything fully automatic. I'm also in favor of technology that makes it so only the legal owner of the firearm (and maybe a few people of the owners choosing) has the ability to use said firearm, which would both limit the black market (which is a MAJOR problem in NY; about 60% of all homicides are done via weapons purchased elsewhere) and serve as a barrier against crime (due to the reduction in the number of people who could commit a crime with a specific firearm).

Comment

I'm going to make a over the top argument here to make a point: Do I, as an American citizen, have the Constitutional right, per the second Amendment, to have personal ownership of a nuclear weapon, and the right to use said weapon in defense of my property, family, and person?

Hence the issue here: "Yes" is idiotic for reasons that shouldn't need to be explained. "No" implies that government does have the right to control ownership/purchase of some forms of weapons based on some criteria, in which case, we argue over the threshold of what forms of weapons are allowable, rather then whether weapons are allowable.

Personally? I view the issue more of being a cultural problem, rather then a gun problem. That being said, I would put the limit of allowable firearms below anything fully automatic. I'm also in favor of technology that makes it so only the legal owner of the firearm (and maybe a few people of the owners choosing) has the ability to use said firearm, which would both limit the black market (which is a MAJOR problem in NY; about 60% of all homicides are done via weapons purchased elsewhere) and serve as a barrier against crime (due to the reduction in the number of people who could commit a crime with a specific firearm).

Personally, I view the problem as one of intelligence, and I keep seeing utterly stupid arguments like this one from people who pretend to be intelligent with a completely straight face.

I've worked with nuclear weapons. You couldn't have and maintain one even if international regulation to keep their constituent parts out of your hands weren't in place. Nuclear weapons are easier to find and track than a gun in a metal detector. It takes the resources of an entire nation just to get such a weapon, and the might of a nation to keep it.

The fact is that bombs, big bombs, rockets, and all kinds of devastating weapons were plentiful, and in private hands when our fouders wrote our Constitution. And they had seen those weapons used in anger. They may very likely have had some of them themselves. And yet they saw fit to insist that such weaponry should continue to be available to everyone. You may not like it, or agree with it, but it is simply so. So ask yourself why they might have done so. The fact is that they saw more, and knew more that you likely ever will.

Moreover, unstable, irrational Pakinstan has them, and yet Afghanistan and Iran were apparently never too concerned about it.

Clearly, you find yourself to be an insightful, analytical genius, but I find that your words betray a dangerous naivet? that, if allowed its full expression, would end in our suffering the same fate as the Jews of 1930s/1940s Germany.

You have utterly no idea what you're talking about, so, please, spare us your blind insights.

I, as an American citizen, do have the right to keep and bear whatever arms I see fit. As a former member of its armed services, I am obliged to stop you from any attept to change that fact using whatever level of force is necessary to do so.

Be as smart as you try to play it. Recognize that I'm not your enemy. You are mine. Figure it out.

Comment

Personally, I view the problem as one of intelligence, and I keep seeing utterly stupid arguments like this one from people who pretend to be intelligent with a completely straight face.

Well, this discussion got off to a great start.

I've worked with nuclear weapons. You couldn't have and maintain one even if international regulation to keep their constituent parts out of your hands weren't in place. Nuclear weapons are easier to find and track than a gun in a metal detector. It takes the resources of an entire nation just to get such a weapon, and the might of a nation to keep it.

Which is irrelevant to the argument at hand. Yes, economically, private individuals are never going to have access to said weapons. That isn't the point of the argument though.

The fact is that bombs, big bombs, rockets, and all kinds of devastating weapons were plentiful, and in private hands when our fouders wrote our Constitution. And they had seen those weapons used in anger. They may very likely have had some of them themselves. And yet they saw fit to insist that such weaponry should continue to be available to everyone. You may not like it, or agree with it, but it is simply so. So ask yourself why they might have done so. The fact is that they saw more, and knew more that you likely ever will.

Time for a history lesson: The Constitution as drafted, signed, and approved by 11 of the 13 states (making it the law of the land) had no provision explicitly protecting the right to bear arms. Madison insisted after the fact in having individual rights explicitly granted within the Constitution. New Hampshire also refused to adopt the Constitution until the Bill of Rights was drafted and put before the state legislators.

[It's worth noting Federalists disliked this a great deal, since this reasoning could be used to limit any rights that were not explicitly protected. Privacy rights today is a good example of why they are being proven right. They argued the rights explicitly forbidden to Congress/President already in the Constitution was enough to limit governments power.]

Secondly, the Second Amendment to the US Constitution was for 150 years read and interpreted to mean that state militia groups (which until WWI was how the US Armed Forces was largely comprised; Federal troops were few and far between until then. It was state militia groups under Federal generalship that did almost all the fighting until then) had the right to such weapons. 5 Justices on the Supreme Court ruled otherwise in the early 30's (forget the year offhand), ruling that every citizen was inherently a member of the militia, this extending the Second Amendment to private citizens.

So no, the founders NEVER had any intention for such weapons to be in the hands of private citizens.

Moreover, unstable, irrational Pakinstan has them, and yet Afghanistan and Iran were apparently never too concerned about it.

Afghanistan has had its own problems for the past 30 years and couldn't afford to have such weapons. Iran cares enough to have its own nuclear program. And not's forget Pakistan's traditional enemy, India, which obtained such weapons just a year after Pakistan. Hell, India flipped out when Pakistan got its nukes; Pakistan having them almost started a war between the two countries.

Clearly, you find yourself to be an insightful, analytical genius, but I find that your words betray a dangerous naivet? that, if allowed its full expression, would end in our suffering the same fate as the Jews of 1930s/1940s Germany.

Germany became a dictatorship because that's what the people wanted. They elected Hitler, remember? If we ever get to that point, then something has already gone fundamentally wrong with the country.

You have utterly no idea what you're talking about, so, please, spare us your blind insights.

I, as an American citizen, do have the right to keep and bear whatever arms I see fit. As a former member of its armed services, I am obliged to stop you from any attept to change that fact using whatever level of force is necessary to do so.

And you, as an American citizen in a Republic, are required to follow whatever laws are passed by Congress, signed by the President, and upheld by the courts. And if all three at some point decide to do away with such weapons (not that I'm advocating that, mind you), you are required to go along with it. That's how a Republic works.

And also, since it's relevant since you brought up the military bit: I work for a defense contractor. So don't try and use the "I'm in the military, so I'm obviously right" moral argument on me. I fight for the country, same as you do, we just have different ways of doing it. You may use the weapons, but I'm the one on the production lines developing and testing them. So every time you hear how there was a pinpoint airstrike on an enemy at danger-close range to US ground troops, think of me.

Be as smart as you try to play it. Recognize that I'm not your enemy. You are mine. Figure it out.

And we end on such a happy note!

Comment

And also, since it's relevant since you brought up the military bit: I work for a defense contractor. So don't try and use the "I'm in the military, so I'm obviously right" moral argument on me. I fight for the country, same as you do, we just have different ways of doing it. You may use the weapons, but I'm the one on the production lines developing and testing them. So every time you hear how there was a pinpoint airstrike on an enemy at danger-close range to US ground troops, think of me.

Come on, man. I've worked for a DoD contractor too and you know as well as I do that it's nothing more than a big gravy train industry. Nobody in DoD has skin in the game like a man on the ground fighting some asinine war conceived by a relative handful of megalomaniac psychopaths who take money from said contractors to keep the gravy train rolling.

Comment

Personally, I view the problem as one of intelligence, and I keep seeing utterly stupid arguments like this one from people who pretend to be intelligent with a completely straight face.

I've worked with nuclear weapons. You couldn't have and maintain one even if international regulation to keep their constituent parts out of your hands weren't in place. Nuclear weapons are easier to find and track than a gun in a metal detector. It takes the resources of an entire nation just to get such a weapon, and the might of a nation to keep it.

The fact is that bombs, big bombs, rockets, and all kinds of devastating weapons were plentiful, and in private hands when our fouders wrote our Constitution. And they had seen those weapons used in anger. They may very likely have had some of them themselves. And yet they saw fit to insist that such weaponry should continue to be available to everyone. You may not like it, or agree with it, but it is simply so. So ask yourself why they might have done so. The fact is that they saw more, and knew more that you likely ever will.

Moreover, unstable, irrational Pakinstan has them, and yet Afghanistan and Iran were apparently never too concerned about it.

Clearly, you find yourself to be an insightful, analytical genius, but I find that your words betray a dangerous naivet? that, if allowed its full expression, would end in our suffering the same fate as the Jews of 1930s/1940s Germany.

You have utterly no idea what you're talking about, so, please, spare us your blind insights.

I, as an American citizen, do have the right to keep and bear whatever arms I see fit. As a former member of its armed services, I am obliged to stop you from any attept to change that fact using whatever level of force is necessary to do so.

Be as smart as you try to play it. Recognize that I'm not your enemy. You are mine. Figure it out.

Saying, essentially, "because the Founder's said so" is hardly any kind of argument. For one, it is simply an argument from authority, second, they were fallable since we've, thus far, had to amend their work twenty-seven times.
I'm not sure we'll ever have an amendment that overrides the second, but that doesn't mean it has a rational basis.
BTW, Godwin's Law is also a bit silly. If the jews had weapons they still would've been steamrolled by the nazis, guerilla warfare or not (keeping in mind germany/austria/poland are hardly afghanistan-like country) since that was a war of extinction and the nazis, early on, were the finest army in the world.

Comment

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

So, what part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not get?

Or are you just so blinded by your own brilliance that you really, seriously think that earlier drafts of the Constitution somehow bear out meanings the final draft conceals?

Smug elitists feigning superiority without even so much as a genuine appeal to valid logic may not assume the moral high ground just because they say so. You're going to have to earn it.

The availability of nuclear weapons is exactly the point you brought up, and I shot it down by pointing out that it is simply not an option, and, thus, your point is invalid. Or do you not quite grasp the finer points of logic? Maybe you should take a class in it.

And here's a history lesson for you. Every tyrant, including King George, to attempt to conquer their own people made the confiscation of the people's weapons a primary point in their plans, and always to disastrous effect.

And another one: Thomas Jefferson was a 2nd amendment gun nut, recommending to his college-bound nephew to eschew sports, which were designed to magnify the differences between men, for the gun, which was 'the great equalizer of men.' Hardly the sort to be squeamish about the average citizen being armed.

And yet another history lesson: However anyone read or interpreted any of the amendments had more to do with their personal biases and efforts to decieve an ignorant public. From the very beginning, we've had foreign powers trying to corrupt us from within and without. Their opinions must be regarded as such. After all, I have mine, too, and you don't much care for them. I can read it, and, as we've already seen, get something completely different from it than you do. But then I have some experience in language, especially ours, and what today seems like the overly quaint uses of 230 years ago. For example, noting that a militia is any armed body, including the military, police, FBI, BATFE, IRS, and now even the EPA, among others, but that the people are not a militia even if they are armed, but remain individuals, then it seems obvious to me that what keeps those militae well regulated is the fact that the people are just as well armed, which makes perfect sense. All the blathering about what a milita is, or who's in it comes across as attempts at subterfuge.

Oh, and, by the way, no, I am not obliged to follow whatever Congress or the President decide. Look up the Nuremberg decision. Study the UCMJ. Moreover, the amendment process is for clarifying the Constitution in fine, NOT for redifining it, and certainly not for taking away from it. And that is just what military members swear an oath to protect. Otherwise, what are they defending? And from whom? If the Constitution can be whatever anyone decides it is, then there's nothing to defend, indeed nothing worth defending.

And just what has your vaunted role in assembly line production to do with anything? When you lay your life on the line to keep the United States what its founders intended, give us a call. Till then, you're just a poser.

Comment

And another one: Thomas Jefferson was a 2nd amendment gun nut, recommending to his college-bound nephew to eschew sports, which were designed to magnify the differences between men, for the gun, which was 'the great equalizer of men.' Hardly the sort to be squeamish about the average citizen being armed.

Heh heh heh. Jefferson was actually looked down upon by the other founding fathers at the time, because he was a little too friendly with the common man for their tastes. Such as inviting them all to party at the white house for multiple days (and completely trashing it) after he was elected.